Re: [picocontainer-dev] annotations and comments on Pico2

Konstantin Priblouda wrote:
> --- "Putrycz, Erik" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
>> Konstantin, not sure what you mean by
>> "unflexibility". And do you mean
>> you rather would not have any annotations in the
>> container?
> 
> I have 2 main objections to use of annotation for
> wiring configuration
> 
> 1. they introduce dependency on container ( which is 
> kind of uncool ) 

I think adding a dependency on the container is bad, too. Using 
annotations to model component dependencies is usefull in some cases. So 
I suggest creating annotation types like "Inject" or "Singleton" or 
"ThreadLocal" in the domain model and let pico provide a simple api/spi 
to make us of this annotations.

The simples form would be sth. like

pico.mapAnnotationToCA(com.acme.model.ThreadLocal.class, 
ThreadLocalCA.class)

> 2. they are compiled into classes and can not be
> changed afterwards. This can be solved by second
> externalisable configuration system - and what value 
> do they have afterwards? 

Using annotations to wire components together is often fine. Using 
annotations for configuration is mostly bad. (my two cents).

-billy

-- 
Philipp Meier - [email protected]

A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q: Why is top posting bad?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email